Life in 19x19. Go, Weiqi, Baduk... Thats the life.
https://lifein19x19.com/
instead of the 3 space pincer that would have been my first choice before. I'm not dissatisfied with the result in the game at least, as I developed well on the corner and the side while giving him a slightly inefficient shape (and a group that could have been attacked even if I didn't). I guess the pincer might be one of those "double purpose" move that aren't accomplishing either of their purpose very well. As an extension it's a bit too wide and it is the least severe way to pincer.
was bad, but I wasn't punished for it so I got a fine result (but 
should have been at 
for an even better result). According to the Takao Shinji joseki dictionary, at c12 is the move, or at h16, then white e14, black f15. The result is generally better for white, but here I think it's fine since that weaken l17.
should be at a10 since white can't escape or cut at b12, 
at a10 would kill.
.interesting experiment.I have to live in a precarious situation.
Consider that you may already have learned the most valuable lesson. You have had your success against unreasonable opponents (in other words, opponents that exposed themselves to too precarious situations). Emulating them (particularly the dying part) is not the way to consistently win at Go. Strong players may appear to be in precarious situations but the reason that they are strong is that they already see the way home when they decide to get into those situations.Bki wrote:I've been thinking that I should put myself more often in situation where I have to live in a precarious situation. The reason for that being that I've played quite a fair amount of games that I won because I killed an unreasonable opponent, but basically none that I won because I've skillfully created a living group in my opponent's sphere of influence...
This on the other hand is a bad habit that is worth working on. If you cannot see what the threat is, do not defend. Let your opponent demonstrate the limits of your current knowledge so that you can study the difference between necessary and unnecessary defensive moves. The next step is the difference between more and less efficient, but necessary defensive moves.... and my instincts tend to go more for the extraneous defensive move
Well, first I wasn't talking about doing invasions which obviously don't work but try to more often go deep when I'm unsure. The idea is less to win more games, and more to improve, because I feel that the best way to be able to get the feel about whether a group can live or not (and at what cost can it live, and whether that cost is acceptable), apart from doing lots of life and death which I am doing, is experience.ez4u wrote:Consider that you may already have learned the most valuable lesson. You have had your success against unreasonable opponents (in other words, opponents that exposed themselves to too precarious situations). Emulating them (particularly the dying part) is not the way to consistently win at Go. Strong players may appear to be in precarious situations but the reason that they are strong is that they already see the way home when they decide to get into those situations.Bki wrote:I've been thinking that I should put myself more often in situation where I have to live in a precarious situation. The reason for that being that I've played quite a fair amount of games that I won because I killed an unreasonable opponent, but basically none that I won because I've skillfully created a living group in my opponent's sphere of influence...
This on the other hand is a bad habit that is worth working on. If you cannot see what the threat is, do not defend. Let your opponent demonstrate the limits of your current knowledge so that you can study the difference between necessary and unnecessary defensive moves. The next step is the difference between more and less efficient, but necessary defensive moves.... and my instincts tend to go more for the extraneous defensive move
left me very satisfied. It's effectively as if he let me have 3 corners and my position on the right was nice. I'm not sure if the turn at 
was the right move, but his immediate cut let me develop on the bottom as well as solidify the right into solid territory, so I think it's fine even had I failed to kill the group later.
I've made it my habit to "punish" this large knight by the 3-3 invasion (well it's probably not a real punishment, but there's no way I can accept giving him a "basically the same as for the small knight, but better for black" by sliding, and I know there's also complicated variation that can arise from this move but have no clue about them).. I don't mind the result that followed from 
but it did left me with no base and eyes even if the group has enough liberty and space that it's not going to die.I think defending on the left with a hanging connection is better here. The turn at the bottom puts no pressure on Black's corner group, so its function is reduced to influencing bottom and centre. The hanging connection provides strength for the group, influencing the right side.Bki wrote: I'm not sure if the turn at
Locally yes, but your group at the bottom is not very strong. Giving Black strong influence as a result of the corner invasion, is dangerous in this position (as is shown later)Bki wrote:
Your instinct to "punish" the large knight's extension in this case is a good one. But isn't E-03 better than C-03? It threatens to connect to your stones on the right. Sure, the fight can get complicated, but White has the advantage with so many stones locally. Don't avoid a fight where you are strong.Bki wrote:
Your opponent is more likely to make a misstep than you are, because of that. Faint heart, fair lady, and all that. 
would normally be a trick play, refuted by D6, and after white cut the fight is in black's favour. But on this board the triangled stone is quite nicely placed to make the cut a lot more severe.